CONTEXT: This video is looking at the musical examples in the lawsuit. I have issued many warnings and explanations that AI is in its infancy and will ABSOLUTELY get better, very, very soon. That's not the point of this video. Here's my first video on the topci back in May... kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rZiHiNVeurScno0.html

The music industry are trying to equate training as sampling. I hope Suno's attorneys don't let them get away with that.

Ingesting works is what every artist/creator does. This is not copyright violation. Producing new works based on what was ingested over a lifetime is what every artist/creator does. This is not copyright infringement. But forcing/coercing an artist/creator to produce a work that is a forgery or copy of an existing work is illegal. This is what the record companies have done, using exact lyrics and artists' names when using the AI tools to accuse AI of copying their music. They are the criminals here, not the AI tools. They are misusing the tools for illegal purposes, just like any criminal can misuse tools.

The appearance of producer tags in Suno generations is similar to the reproduction of watermarks by image generators such as MidJourney, Dall-E and Stable Diffusion. The training data used by image generators contain a great deal of stock photos with watermarks for various stock photography sites. These watermarks will sometimes appear in generated images. I believe a similar thing is happening when producer tags appear in Suno's music generations. It's due to the fact that these producer tags appeared so often in Suno's training data.

Labels seem to be greedy and afraid for their future. If they could produce better music today, there will be no problem. The problem is that the actual level is very low and people have more fun with AI than to listen to what those labels propose.

If you 3D print a Star Wars figure and try to sell it, you will be prosecuted, not the 3D printer company. Sony is the one trying to break the law here.

Remember though, Suno and Udio aren't even a year old. Covid was 4 years ago, and look at how much things have changed since then. Now imagine (assuming the big 3 labels aren't successful in their long game strategy of shutting down these 2 companies) where things will go in the Ai Music industry 4 years from now.

You can absolutely take an exact melody and change a few notes and timings and that's a new creation. There's only a very small finite number of combinations of notes and timing you can have in 4 or 8 bars of melody.

I know musicians that have created what they call "sound-alikes" for films where the director had used unlicensed temp music that they didn't want to license for release so they hired musicians to create "sound-alikes". Humans have been legally doing this with tools forever. If that tool is Udio or Suno or whatever, that shouldn't make any difference. This is Sony and their ilk gasping for air, breaking the law to stay relevant.

2:38 its not 100 mill, its 99 mill. Like a 99c can of soda, this is designed to trick suno into thinking its a much better deal than an even 100.

If anything, I'm listening more to music on Spotify, KZfaq & other sources than ever before since using Suno. It also made me discover more songs & artists that I might never have found otherwise. When will they understand that these things make ppl go back to, listen to & buy more music than they did before. AND discover more and new artists!

The examples they give definitely qualify as infringement for use of the lyrics, so I agree with "entire output", but banking on that is a bit embarrassing, the defendants could still just play the works side by side for a jury when the complaint is how the model trains rather than the output. Meanwhile, we need a ruling that establishes liability for directing a tool to creating infringing works to be with the person using the tool and not the tool itself.

They should play every one of these songs to the jury WITHOUT lyrics and ask them what song it is. They would fail every time.

All those examples I want to know if they manually put in the lyrics.... I don't think udio or suno just randomly got all of the lyrics of these songs. I think people put in the lyrics and then are using that as "evidence" of copying....

That tune at 26:20 is really nice.

Kind of funny when you add the lyrics to "Rock Around the Clock" and expect Suno not to use the lyrics. Suno just need to add a lyrics guard to prevent that, guess there is some fine print for every user that now it's up to them not using copyrighted lyrics. Anyone can create whatever music and add an already copyrighted lyrics with their own melody. 😅 Those lawyers don't get it, what a copyright includes. Thing is that Suno might never be able to allow users to add "own" melodies and chords, because that will get the final output into copyright zone. If the user eg add the chords & melody & lyrics for eg Yesterday. To get a copy of a song I guess someone should at least make 25k + attempts.

It's completely legal to create something that is similar to something else and in the same style. This is ridiculous. But most jurors aren't well versed in music enough to know the difference given a sneaky lawyer.

It's funny how users think there is an outcome of this case where we benefit. This is a fight between corporations who both want to rip of artists and fill their pockets.

Yeah, juries are not very bright when it comes to music. The ABC song, Mary Had a Little Lamb, Twinkle Twinkle Little Star all use the exact same melody, but they are completely stand alone songs.

I support Suno and I think theirs're going to win

You said you can't collect royalties on AI music yet. Is that from the film and tv studios? Udio and Suno's rules? The US govt copyright law?

Having spent a considerable amount of hours lately trying out Suno in various ways, probably prompting upwards of 150 tracks, I can say with some authority that 90% deal of it sounds like doo-doo, just like a lot of Chat GPT is clearly programmed doo-doo. In all of that I only found one track that sounded vaguely like something I know. And the lyrics are laughable, worse than most beginning songwriters I've ever read. (the only way you could get a music generator to use specific lyric lines is to prompt it that way, don't you think)... I doubt very much the record companies are really threatened by AI music generation. I watched another video yesterday that suggested this lawsuit is about money, and that the record companies want a cut of the Suno pie. Give them their percentage and their assertion that they are protecting artists... may disappear. Unfortunately the jury will not be made up of musicians and composers who understand music composition and production. Anyway, Who IS threatened by AI music generation is media composers who will lose opportunities to have music placed in television, film and other media as it will be cheaper to hire a music editor who prompts well and can master the final results into the soundtrack.

Here's the RIAA's problem with this "evidence". They indicate that the lyrics were input by the testers. They were not generated by the platforms. All music is based on patterns. These generators can probably generate all the patterns that have ever been used. So input the lyrics you want in custom mode and generate hundreds of times until you get the patterns you need with a similar enough melody and presto, there's your "evidence". This being the case, no, this is definitely NOT obvious use of copyrighted materials for training. It's a good assumption that they used the material mainly because Suno and Udio are using "fair use" argument. That's it, because this evidence is garbage if the lyrics were input by the testers. What are the chances that the developers intentionally included titles, lyrics and artists names in all of the millions of tracks in the data if the goal was only to train on patterns? It's not likely that they did. Also, generators convert everything into digital data, not notes and chords. So the result is pulling from random data to fit a target genre, mood, etc. It did not say, "OK, I understand your prompt to mean that you want Mariah Carey's specific song even though you never said that's what you wanted." If it did, wouldn't it just spit out the full song exactly as it that was in its data? To me, that's just common sense. Not doing that would mean that Suno and Udio either didn't encode that information, intentional put filters to avoid generation of the exact song, or did both. The only leg the RIAA has to stand on is a confession from Udio and Suno and then it's all about "fair use". What's obvious here it the ploy used to bring this to court. The RIAA knows this isn't evidence of using their music for training and they had to have consulted with AI experts who would have told them this evidence was meaningless. I think the RIAA is using the examples to bring the case to court and that will force the developers to reveal their data sources through the discovery process, which is where both sides must reveal anything that could be in favor of the other side's case. It's all about getting that confession and then trying to blow a hole through the fair use argument. And from what I read both of their arguments, I suspect Udio and Suno could win that. But they probably don't want to risk losing and will settle out of court with a offer to give the labels a revenue share of every subscription moving forward without paying any of those penalties. And once again, the RIAA will have run a power play against their competitors to get in on the $$$$$$$$$$. That is what they have done every single time.

This case is pathetic. Try as they may, none of the outputs sounds like the copyrighted songs they claimed. It sounds like a bad cover at best. At worse, it's not even the same song. Also, didn't google got sued multiple times for this exact same reason? With the same logic. The court ruled that AI training is fair use. Even with copyrighted works as training, it's still fair used. That makes this case even more dumb.

What you said in the beginning people do what AI Is doing now for long time. People buy or hear music they heard. People learn the flow, chords, bass, guitars drums then create music from that. Ai just does it faster on a major scale

These aren't even covers. They melody doesn't match at all. And the lyrics were fed into the tool by Sony.

Just like a human can use tools to illegally recreate music or art using their musical and artist's tools, Sony and their ilk can use Udio, etc to illegally recreate their music as well. That's not Udio's fault. That's Sony acting like a criminal.

Will Suno Destroy The Music Industry? Hell yes. Just wait few years more. The generated songs will be better versions of and will outcompete the originals in most contexts that generate revenue. Should Suno destroy the music industry? I don't know... maybe?

"It sounds horrible" isn't exactly a good point to avoid a copyright claim. I'm sure they will loose because they've directed the tool. Just like I can't sue Adobe Photoshop because I've used their brushes to paint a copy of something. It was my intention, not the tools. But AI isn't "inspired" or "learned like humans learn" We're skipping a lot of steps to make that argument.

it may not be a threat yet but it will thats why they are snuffing it out now and good on them for doing so! theirs plenty of good cases for which ai can be used to make our lives better this is not one of them.

biased examples used there .. leaving the video ..

If these will be the counterarguments, farewell Udio and Suno 😂 AI music is in the same market of the stolen music, and that is enough to break the fourth factor of fair use. The point is that is not fair to steal and use against, it doesn’t matter if you succeed or not in hurting the original. You are very emotional for some reason when it comes to AI, and don’t understand basic law.

99% of this stuff is crap, just like the originals